Materials that directly convert radiation into electricity could produce a new era of spacecraft and even Earth-based vehicles powered by high-powered nuclear batteries, say US researchers.
Electricity is usually made using nuclear power by heating steam to rotate turbines that generate electricity.
But beginning in the 1960s, the US and Soviet Union used thermoelectric materials that convert heat into electricity to power spacecraft using nuclear fission or decaying radioactive material. The Pioneer missions were among those using the latter, "nuclear battery" approach.
Dispensing with the steam and turbines makes those systems smaller and less complicated. But thermoelectric materials have very low efficiency. Now US researchers say they have developed highly efficient materials that can convert the radiation, not heat, from nuclear materials and reactions into electricity.
Liviu Popa-Simil, former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear engineer and founder of private research and development company LAVM and Claudiu Muntele, of Alabama A&M University, US, say transforming the energy of radioactive particles into electricity is more effective.
The materials they are testing would extract up to 20 times more power from radioactive decay than thermoelectric materials, they calculate.
Tests of layered tiles of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride are under way. Radioactive particles that slam into the gold push out a shower of high-energy electrons. They pass through carbon nanotubes and pass into the lithium hydride from where they move into electrodes, allowing current to flow.
"You load the material with nuclear energy and unload an electric current," says Popa-Simil.
The tiles would be best used to create electricity using a radioactive material, says Popa-Simil, because they could be embedded directly where radiation is greatest. But they could also harvest power directly from a fission reactor's radiation.
Devices based on the material could be small enough to power anything from interplanetary probes to aircraft and land vehicles, he adds.
"I believe this work is innovative and could have a significant impact on the future of nuclear power," says David Poston, of the US Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. However perfecting new nuclear technologies requires years of development, he adds.
Popa-Simil agrees, saying it will be at least a decade before final designs of the radiation-to-electricity concept are built.
A paper on the new nuclear power materials was presented on 25 March, at the Materials Research Society Spring Meeting 2008 , San Francisco, California, US.
Nanotechnology - Follow the emergence of a new technology in our continuously updated special report.
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our comprehensive special report.
By Luis Modesto
Thu Mar 27 21:27:44 GMT 2008
Adding to my previous comment: The size to wieght to energy ratio would be such that a tiny amount of nuclear fuel could drive a cell phone or laptop. Shielding could be such that radiation is a minor concern. "Dirty bombs" would require such enoumous numbers & logistics that terrorism would be impractical.By Soylent
Sat Mar 29 05:51:36 GMT 2008
That depends. If what you're shielding against is charged particles heavy elements are a poor choice. They decelerate the particles so fast that you get bremsstrahlung x-rays which have much higher penetration.
By David Lewis
Thu Mar 27 22:01:12 GMT 2008
If it uses radiation, we could build self sustaining waste containment facilities. These could power themselves using radioactive nuclear waste that the facilities are already storing. They would likely have power left over from powering the cooling pools (to prevent a meltdown) to add to the power grid. A 250,000 year battery! Plus as a power source we'd probably monitor the waste heavily to avoid having it fall into terrorists hands.By Nikolaus
Fri Mar 28 20:38:31 GMT 2008
This could be the solution to radioactive waste! Just put it all in our iPod's! "They"ll never release such long lasting batteries or anything useful to a consumer. We're like cash cows to the energy companies. I can see it now.. Buy a AA battery that lasts forever but it'll be sold by BP for $1000 each like solar cells.By Jeremy
Sun Mar 30 15:53:37 BST 2008
I have to agree with Max. Yes there may be fewer jobs, but honestly I even doubt that. There are still very many jobs out there that will still be needed for many years to come. The main problem is people not getting enough education to continue to pursue their original dreams. So if it was used to stop the energy crisis (doubtful because it really is all about the money to most companies) people would have more money to finish school and all that jazz. Not to mention the only things you really need to survive, and happily mind you, is fresh food, water, air and good shelter. If we would all focus us helping everything have all four of those things the world would already be a better place and everything else would sort itself out anyway because we would be happy and healthy enough to put our energy into it.By Bob
Mon Mar 31 01:39:10 BST 2008
Well said Jeremy. If more people thought like you in the real world we would have not nearly the amount of problems we have today. The Indians had it right. The sooner we all realize that the sooner we can be free for the bonds of capitalism. ...By Josh
Wed Apr 02 20:35:47 BST 2008
You missed something there in Economics.All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
18:00 23 July 2008
